I am utterly astounded by the kind of dialogue that is surrounding this incident.

1) The university is the problem, blame them2) Costumes are the problem -don't let anyone wear costumes in movie theatres3) Society is the problem... or something

And everyone is so cowed by the NRA lobby that it's completely unthinkable to suggest that maybe the second amendment is a farking retarded piece of outdated legislation that needs to be done away with, and that maybe it's not such a good idea for demonstrably mentally ill people with homicidal ideation to have a right to carry AR-15's.

but don't mind me... please, go back to talking about how costumes are the real problem.

drjekel_mrhyde:Can your psychiatrist really do this? Doesn't it goes against their oath?

My understanding is that mental health professionals are not sworn to a legally protected oath like lawyers. If a patient is abusing someone or is threatening to hurt someone the psychiatrist/psychologist is legally required to notify the authorities. It's a felony to not inform. My guess is that the shooter didn't make solid threats in his sessions.

I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the psychologist involved. She was probably concerned, but there wasn't enough evidence to put legal action into motion. Remember, people can be sued for these things. Maybe the shooter just said something like, "Sometimes I think it would be great if other people suffered like me" or something really vague like that. Nothing that would rise to the level of worst mass shooting in U.S. history. As a few people have already said, hindsight is 20/20, right?

WienerButt:This is also like those stories of people having a crazy ex and the most they can do is get a restraining order. Then the ex kills them and the outrage is, 'why wasn't more done?!?!'....what the hell CAN you do?

Isn't the answer obvious? Anyone who has seen 'Minority Report' knows the solution is to put Tom Cruise in charge of our law enforcement system. Not sure why Fartbongo hasn't already taken care of this.

ModernPrimitive01:Interestingly, the only profession where there isn't an obligation to report as least some of the time is the priesthood. The shiat they must hear that they keep inside would be terrible life to live. That is more of a burden than I could handle and I've heard some pretty awful things as a counselor

I thought priests had the same obligations as therapists with regards to notification. Huh. That's interesting.

ModernPrimitive01:draypresct: steklo: Well, that explains a lot. I would hate to be those people who made that decision. Several lives could've been spared or not injured.

I wonder how they sleep at night?

Also wonder if they can be sued...

As someone who has made that decision, it's not an easy one to make. Taking someone's freedom away by having the cops take them to a psychiatric hospital or letting them go with the possibility they pulled the wool over your eyes and end up hurting someone is often a judgement call of epic proportions. Most of the time you don't sleep at night no matter which way you go with it. And yes they can be sued but more likely the college will be sued. The mental health professional can also be dragged in front of their licensing board to have their career basically ended.

unlikely in this particular case, if the psychiatrist HAD acted to have the person committed. Various newspapers reported that the packet of info he sent her (which apparently she didn't look at till after the shooting) contained detailed drawings of his plans. The psychiatrist had a duty to protect the public from this person, and was obligated to do so under the so-called Tarasoff ruling from the US Supreme Court. From wiki:

"Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 17 Cal. 3d 425, 551 P.2d 334, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14 (Cal. 1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of California held that mental health professionals have a duty to protect individuals who are being threatened with bodily harm by a patient. The original 1974 decision mandated warning the threatened individual, but a 1976 rehearing of the case by the California Supreme Court called for a "duty to protect" the intended victim. The professional may discharge the duty in several ways, including notifying police, warning the intended victim, and/or taking other reasonable steps to protect the threatened individual."

I'd argue by just warning the university officials (who did nothing), the psychiatrist did not carry out her obligations according to Tarasoff. She should have also alerted police and taken steps to have him committed.

Will the public and news media crucify the psychiatrist for not doing more? Because, you know, Paterno told higher-ups about Sandusky, and those higher-ups did nothing, and Paterno was blamed for not doing more. This psychiatrist reported to higher-ups that Holmes was a dangerous lunatic, and those higher-ups did nothing, so of course she should also be blamed for not doing more. She could have gone to the police herself, right? And now a bunch of people are dead and injured. I think murder should trump sexual abuse.

cassanovascotian:I am utterly astounded by the kind of dialogue that is surrounding this incident.

1) The university is the problem, blame them2) Costumes are the problem -don't let anyone wear costumes in movie theatres3) Society is the problem... or something

And everyone is so cowed by the NRA lobby that it's completely unthinkable to suggest that maybe the second amendment is a farking retarded piece of outdated legislation that needs to be done away with, and that maybe it's not such a good idea for demonstrably mentally ill people with homicidal ideation to have a right to carry AR-15's.

but don't mind me... please, go back to talking about how costumes are the real problem.

If it wasn't guns, it would've probably been household chemicals turned into a bomb.

In Russia you can't get a driver's license if you had mental issues. Here you can get a firearm without a psych eval. Banning "assault weapons" is stupid. Doing more than a cursory background check is not.

WienerButt:This is also like those stories of people having a crazy ex and the most they can do is get a restraining order. Then the ex kills them and the outrage is, 'why wasn't more done?!?!'....what the hell CAN you do?

Yep. The only thing it really does is geared towards after the fact. At least they know WHO killed the woman in her home with 74 stab wounds...

But, it's also nice that if you do see them, or they come by and you have time that you've got that piece of paper and the cops will come to you a whole hell of a lot quicker. And, if you've got a gun and need to use it, there's absolute proof of a necessary death.

They weren't wrong, really. Their job is to protect the university community, not the world at large. Who could they have told that would have done something? If they told the police, not much the police would likely have done.

Any idea where this guy rates compared to the general [grad] student population? My recollections are that schools draw plenty of weirdos, and that plenty of those that can't handle life try to hide there. Until he made legally specific threats, I doubt he managed to break the 3rd percentile of creepiness. How many weirdos do you have to lock up/kick out to stop this?

Followup: Psychology/Neuroscience/pretty much everything schools in Colorado fall to dismal levels as sychiatric screenings keep most students out.

/and by shoot in the face....i mean with my penis.....and baby batter as ammunition.....

As opposed to shooting her with your penis and using wasabi as the ammo?

You just made my urethra cringe.....

[images.zap2it.com image 360x270]

I'm sure there's a fetish for penile wasabi

OK so serious question....

Next time I go out with the wife for sushi, do you think I'd cause a commotion .....stay with me here.....(visualize this) .. If I stand up and then unzip and then pull out my wang and slap it on the table and grab a *huge* pinch of nice creamy wasabi....and while stroking my manhood to make the insertion easier....take my meat missile and then start stuffing great gobs of green spicy condiment in my stretched open pee hole..... Maybe if I brought an industrial Q-Tip to facilitate insertion.....much like loading black powder and shot in to a cannon and then ramming it home.

Wonder how long it'll take people before they realize things like this are completely unpreventable.

In many cases, you might be correct, but in this (Theater shooting) case, and several others (Columbine) where people were warned or any sane person could see there was a threat, yes, it was 100% preventable.

cassanovascotian:I am utterly astounded by the kind of dialogue that is surrounding this incident.

1) The university is the problem, blame them2) Costumes are the problem -don't let anyone wear costumes in movie theatres3) Society is the problem... or something

And everyone is so cowed by the NRA lobby that it's completely unthinkable to suggest that maybe the second amendment is a farking retarded piece of outdated legislation that needs to be done away with, and that maybe it's not such a good idea for demonstrably mentally ill people with homicidal ideation to have a right to carry AR-15's.

but don't mind me... please, go back to talking about how costumes are the real problem.

The NRA has a lot of money behind it, and money counts more than votes. The 2nd amendment would be fine if people would read the first part.

/and by shoot in the face....i mean with my penis.....and baby batter as ammunition.....

As opposed to shooting her with your penis and using wasabi as the ammo?

You just made my urethra cringe.....

[images.zap2it.com image 360x270]

I'm sure there's a fetish for penile wasabi

OK so serious question....

Next time I go out with the wife for sushi, do you think I'd cause a commotion .....stay with me here.....(visualize this) .. If I stand up and then unzip and then pull out my wang and slap it on the table and grab a *huge* pinch of nice creamy wasabi....and while stroking my manhood to make the insertion easier....take my meat missile and then start stuffing great gobs of green spicy condiment in my stretched open pee hole..... Maybe if I brought an industrial Q-Tip to facilitate insertion.....much like loading black powder and shot in to a cannon and then ramming it home.

do you think I'd cause a commotion??

try raising a child in this economy. "daddy was i conseived by monkey wasabi sex?"

So we go from hiding the rape of a few kids to a school covering up for the psycho planning to murder a bunch of people. I think we need to Arthur Andersen the school. At the very least their neuroscience program should get the death penalty... a year for each person in that theater.

zyrian:In Russia you can't get a driver's license if you had mental issues. Here you can get a firearm without a psych eval. Banning "assault weapons" is stupid. Doing more than a cursory background check is not.

// Gun owner. CCW holder. Former Russain.

why do I seriously doubt the russian federation has a a mental health database linked to their national dmv? and why the f*ck couldn't you get a license if you had a mental health issues anyway? I find your entire post incredible.

cassanovascotian:I am utterly astounded by the kind of dialogue that is surrounding this incident.

1) The university is the problem, blame them2) Costumes are the problem -don't let anyone wear costumes in movie theatres3) Society is the problem... or something

And everyone is so cowed by the NRA lobby that it's completely unthinkable to suggest that maybe the second amendment is a farking retarded piece of outdated legislation that needs to be done away with, and that maybe it's not such a good idea for demonstrably mentally ill people with homicidal ideation to have a right to carry AR-15's.

but don't mind me... please, go back to talking about how costumes are the real problem.

The 2nd amendment may be outdated. Kentucky might be horribly misguided on their gun laws. But that's what the future is going to look like; technology isn't going to give society any choice. With the increasing affordability and capability of rapid prototyping machines (which may eventually become ubiquitious) the ability of the state to control firearms will end. Someone has already printed out the lower reciever of a firearm and successfully fired it. They reported that there was virtually no wear and tear on the printed part after ~150 rounds. 3D printers turn firearms into data, no machine shop necessary.

Moreover, given that he apparently made servicable incendiary devices, the fact that he chose firearms, and wasn't particularly proficient in their use may well have saved many lives. Outside of catching him early and institutionalizing him, this may well have been the next best available outcome. Something which, I suspect, is worth keeping in mind as some of us prepare for a battle the RIAA, MPAA, porn producers, video game publishers, and others are already spending billions to fight to a draw.

Well, that lawsuit against the university suddenly doesn't seem so frivolous. On the other hand, where do you draw the line? What would be the standard protocol if one of your students had violent thoughts? Have him see a psychiatrist. Well, he was already doing that. Given that he had not actually acted on any of those thoughts, what else could the university do? Involuntarily commit him for thoughts of violence? Every now and then someone had done something to cause me to visualize them dying a slow and agonizing death. Should I be involuntarily commited? Is the university responsible for the actions of students that are commited off campus? If a UCLA student murders a hooker in Vegas, can the relatives of the deceased sue UCLA for not doing something about it? What about ex-students? Why didn't Harvard catch the fact Ted Kaczynski was insane?

Outside of having them see a mental health professional, which apparently was done for Holmes, and Cho before him, I really don't see what more the scools could have done given these guys never had acted on those violent thoughts.

In all seriousness, it must be said that the formatting of this article is appalling...

HeadlineVideoNBC adVideo captionBylineFive paragraphs of the article, wrapped around an ad on the rightVideoNBC adVideo captionTwo paragraphs of the articleLink to a pollSlideshowOne paragraph of the article, wrapped around a link to NBC's Facebook page on the leftThe rest of the article, with a link to a related article, and wrapped around an ad on the right

way south:HotWingConspiracy: Yeah they should have told the cops!....who would have said he hasn't done anything wrong and all of his weapons were legally purchased.

Its illegal to buy pr keep a firearm if you're entirely off your rocker. If the Doc suspected he was a threat, she probably should have notified the authorities of the homicidal maniac in their midst.

She knew he needed to be flagged in the system.

OK, so he should be convicted and his rights restricted based on a judgement call? You do understand that psychiatry is far from an exact science. Are you really advocating that we 'flag' someone and restrict their rights based on the decisions of entirely fallible human beings?

I bet the same people who whine that he should have been flagged and charged with futurecrime are the same people who whine about police acting overzealously and without justification

By the psychiatrist's own assessment to not call law enforcement themselves, the university had no additional burden of duty to do so. By telling the university, but NOT law enforcement, the psychiatrist was in fact signalling that in her opinion, the risk was not critically serious and did not warrant police intervention.

Scapegoating the university is a dumbfark move, though I suppose in a suit you might be able to squeeze them for some cash if they settle or have an incompetent lawyer. They could try and sue the psychiatrist, for.. incompetence? Malpractice? But good luck.

All of it is wharrrgarbling and wanting to blame someone other than Sideshow Bob, or just get cash.

cassanovascotian:I am utterly astounded by the kind of dialogue that is surrounding this incident.

1) The university is the problem, blame them2) Costumes are the problem -don't let anyone wear costumes in movie theatres3) Society is the problem... or something

And everyone is so cowed by the NRA lobby that it's completely unthinkable to suggest that maybe the second amendment is a farking retarded piece of outdated legislation that needs to be done away with, and that maybe it's not such a good idea for demonstrably mentally ill people with homicidal ideation to have a right to carry AR-15's.

but don't mind me... please, go back to talking about how costumes are the real problem.

You do realize that in most states the mentally ill ARE barred from purchasing or owning firearms right? That's one of the things the background checks are done for. The question is more how do we fix the reporting structures so that (like in the case of the VA Tech Shooter) the information actually gets put in the database, and determine where the line is drawn between mentally ill that will kill someone and mentally ill that just needs Paxil.

Barnacles!:ModernPrimitive01: draypresct: steklo: Well, that explains a lot. I would hate to be those people who made that decision. Several lives could've been spared or not injured.

I wonder how they sleep at night?

Also wonder if they can be sued...

As someone who has made that decision, it's not an easy one to make. Taking someone's freedom away by having the cops take them to a psychiatric hospital or letting them go with the possibility they pulled the wool over your eyes and end up hurting someone is often a judgement call of epic proportions. Most of the time you don't sleep at night no matter which way you go with it. And yes they can be sued but more likely the college will be sued. The mental health professional can also be dragged in front of their licensing board to have their career basically ended.

unlikely in this particular case, if the psychiatrist HAD acted to have the person committed. Various newspapers reported that the packet of info he sent her (which apparently she didn't look at till after the shooting) contained detailed drawings of his plans. The psychiatrist had a duty to protect the public from this person, and was obligated to do so under the so-called Tarasoff ruling from the US Supreme Court. From wiki:

"Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 17 Cal. 3d 425, 551 P.2d 334, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14 (Cal. 1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of California held that mental health professionals have a duty to protect individuals who are being threatened with bodily harm by a patient. The original 1974 decision mandated warning the threatened individual, but a 1976 rehearing of the case by the California Supreme Court called for a "duty to protect" the intended victim. The professional may discharge the duty in several ways, including notifying police, warning the intended victim, and/or taking other reasonable steps to protect the threatened individual."

I'd argue by just warning the university officials (who did nothing), the p ...

The Tarasoff case involved very specific intended victims. It's really a grey area. If the packet said "I'm going to this movie theater" then she could warned theater management, told the police etc. but if she really only read the packet afterward then that's a mute point. She had enough of a hunch to warn the university beforehand but it really depends on what information she had beforehand. The case against her will depend on what she put in her case notes, unless she video tapes her sessions. Otherwise, it's just a he said she said. The thing to remember about Tarasoff is that duty to protect doesn't mean becoming a cop yourself. You pass on the information, your duty to warn is discharged.

Here is a real life example that happens all the time with the duty to protect doctrine: An underage client comes in and says they are being molested at home. You call child protective services, they do a home visit. For various reasons (not good ones) if there is no visible physical abuse done to the child, they usually close the case without doing anything. Your client comes back to you and says, I'm still being molested at home; as long as you re report it, your duty to warn is discharged. Duty to protect doesn't mean you can investigate yourself or go vigilante and bust in and take the kid. Duty to warn means you tell someone hopefully the potential victims, but in a mass murder spree you can't really do that.So even if the people you tell do nothing, you've still fulfilled your ethical obligation. Morally, it's shiatty that she didn't follow up, but ethically she is probably covered.

Next time I go out with the wife for sushi, do you think I'd cause a commotion .....stay with me here.....(visualize this) .. If I stand up and then unzip and then pull out my wang and slap it on the table and grab a *huge* pinch of nice creamy wasabi....and while stroking my manhood to make the insertion easier....take my meat missile and then start stuffing great gobs of green spicy condiment in my stretched open pee hole..... Maybe if I brought an industrial Q-Tip to facilitate insertion.....much like loading black powder and shot in to a cannon and then ramming it home.

do you think I'd cause a commotion??

Interesting you post that in this thread, 'cuz I'm feeling a duty to inform the authorities right now

MycroftHolmes:steklo: Well, that explains a lot. I would hate to be those people who made that decision. Several lives could've been spared or not injured.

I wonder how they sleep at night?

Also wonder if they can be sued...

Out of curiosity, what could or should they have done? From little that was written in the article, it did not sound like her concerns were concrete enough to be actionable. And her concerns were voiced a month before the shooting. Should the police have started tailing him indefinitely because of a vague concern? Should we now have a registry of all people who have ever expressed violent fantasies to their therapist, and have these individuals tracked?

Well, how else are we going to get nuts into treatment before they kill people?

Fenton was "alarmed" by Sideshow Bob's behavior. Shrinks hear a lot of shocking things; I doubt Fenton was alarmed for no specific reason. The reason(s) would be in her report to this "threat assessment" group that decided to kick the can down the road.

At the least, a "welfare check" at Sideshow Bob's apartment would have turned up his arsenal. And yeah, when your shrink is alarmed your guns and incendiary chemicals should be confiscated.